G SIVANANDAM Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU; TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD; SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR; COMMISSIONER, CORPORATION OF CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner submits that land measuring an extent of 7.71 acres comprised in Survey Nos.331/2 and 332, 4.20 acres in Survey No.333, C-33, acres in S.No.334/1 and 334/2 and 1.88 acres in Survey No.319, 326/1, 320/2A and 327 and 329 situated at Mugappair Village, Ambattur Taluk, Thiruvallur District originally belonged to his father. The petitioner along with his brothers and sisters acquired the property by inheritance and they are co-owners of the said land. The petitioner further submits that the land in Survey No.332 measuring 3.20 acres was allotted to his exclusive share and in law vests in him. The petitioner further submits that the said property along with other lands of large extent were acquired by the first respondent for implementation of Ambattur Neighbourhood Scheme. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued by the Government in G.O.Rt No.260 Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 23.10.1975 and the award came to be passed in G.O.Ms.No.1524 Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 09.11.1978.

(2.) The petitioner further submits that a few landowners preferred writ petitions challenging the acquisition and the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court quashed the declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act on 08.01.1988 in respect of those writ petitioners inter-alia holding that Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Rules having not been complied with and the second provision of Section 6(1) of the Act having not been complied while issuing the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. One of the writ petitioners alone moved the Hon'ble Supreme Court as the declaration under Section 6 of the Act alone had been quashed and the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act has been retained as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, on finding that no declaration could be issued as on the date of the order as the period stipulated under Section 6 of the Act having elapsed, allowed the special leave petition and quashed the acquisition in respect of that petitioner alone. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was also quashed but, however liberty was granted to issue fresh notification. The petitioner further submits that the entire acquisition proceedings were quashed. Even so, the respondent did not issue any fresh proceedings but untenably retained the entire land including the property belonging to him. The petitioner along with his brothers and sisters as legal-heirs filed the writ petition in W.P.No.786 of 1997 for return / reconveyance of lands praying for a direction to Government to issue a no objection certificate in favour of them in respect of their lands so as to enable them to develop the same as they deemed fit. This Court allowed the above writ petition directing them to make representations to the Government. However, for the representation made by him, his brothers and sisters, the Government rejected the representation stating that the lands were required for some other purpose.

(3.) The petitioner further submits that he is entitled for re-conveyance of the property lands under Section 48B of the Land Acquisition Act. Hence, the petitioner along with his brothers and sisters filed the writ petition in W.P.No.10911 of 2003 to call for the records of the orders of the first respondent passed on 15.05.2001 and to quash the same and direct the first respondent to re-convey the said land in favour of the petitioners under Section 48B of the Land Acquisition Act, and restore the lands to him and to recover the same. The petitioner further submits that the first respondent filed counter stating that the land in Survey No.331/2 has been utilized by Tamil Nadu Housing Board for construction of 160 HIG flats or allotted for roads and parks. Portions are said to be handed over to the Ambattur Municipality. The bus stand was allegedly constructed in the said land which was handed over to the Pallavan Transport Corporation. The land in S.F.No.332-part was allegedly utilized for bus stand which was handed over to the Transport Corporation and part of the land was allegedly utilized for telephone exchange after being handed over to the Telephone Department. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board utilized portion and part of the lands was utilized for deaf and dumb school. It was further stated in the counter filed in writ petition in W.P.No.10911 of 2003 that the land in S.F.No.334/1, 2 were fully utilized for residential plots and roads. It was further stated that the entire extent of lands acquired have been utilized and that there is no valuable land for reconveyance. Based on the said representation, the Court was misled in the said writ petition to hold the landowners are dis-entitled from even questioning the acquisition proceedings itself after the award is passed and that the claim for reconveyance certainly cannot be entertained. Further, th petitioners were found fault with for not being diligent for not invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction within reasonable time and hence, the writ petition came to be dismissed. The petitioner further submits that in the mean time some of the owners of the plot viz., J.Shenbagavali, D.Malarkodi, M.Seshavanthi and Aasirvatham who had not earlier challenged the acquisition proceedings filed W.P.No.2972 of 2002 seeking specifically for reconveyance of their land. The aforesaid W.P. was disposed of by giving a general direction to the authorities to consider the petitioner's representation. As against the aforesaid order, the said petitioner's filed writ appeals. By order dated 26.02.2002, this Court in W.A.Nos.464 and 465 of 2002 had directed the first respondent therein to reconvey the land to the said petitioners / appellants. Since this order was not complied with, the petitioners had filed the contempt petition and the property in Survey No.331/2 measuring an extent of 75 cents was directed to be reconveyed to the said A.Shenbagavalli and others. Pursuant thereto a deed of reconveyanace was executed on 04.02.2004 and registered as Document No.446 of 2004 in SRO, Ambattur.